Will the UnitedHealth Assassination Lead to 3D Printed Suppressor Blowback?

A security camera footage shows a man in a blue blazer walking along a New York street, followed by a figure in a dark hoodie carrying a large white backpack. The hooded figure stops a few yards behind, draws a suppressed pistol, and fires. The man in the blazer stumbles, and a nearby woman standing in a doorway flees. As the victim, UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson, collapses, the shooter approaches, clears a malfunction in the weapon, and fires again. The attacker remains calm and composed, moving slowly but deliberately.

This was likely not the first time they fired that pistol, though perhaps the first time in anger. The shooter seemed aware of the potential for a malfunction and had clearly practiced clearing the weapon. Despite this preparation, the act doesn’t convey the precision of a professional hit but rather the determination of someone personally motivated to kill the CEO of one of the largest health insurers in the U.S. Mr. Thompson was en route to an event at the Hilton where the attack occurred, suggesting the shooter had been waiting and planning specifically for this moment.

This high-profile assassination is certain to dominate news headlines for several days. One notable detail that may play a role in this case is the suppressor used on the weapon. The fact that the gun was equipped with a suppressor could have two significant implications for the 3D printing industry.

Attention may well be consumed by the shooter’s identity, motives, or other details, but this case stands out due to its unusual circumstances—a wealthy individual targeted in the streets of New York. The typical “thoughts and prayers” reaction is unlikely to suffice here. With its cinematic elements, the case feels more like a plot from a Law & Order episode than a routine crime, and this novelty is bound to keep it in the spotlight.

Update: Currently, the pistol in question seems to be a B&T Station SIX 9, a variant of or precursor to the Brügger & Thomet VP9 , an antique Welrod pistol, or a homemade version of the Welrod pistol. All are essentially the same design. The version available for sale now is a veterinary pistol derived from a design used in the Second World War by the SOE and OSS, the Welrod pistol. This is an incredibly silent pistol designed originally for assassinations up close. The 9mm B&T variant of the gun made now is integrally suppressed and meant to aid veterinarians in the dispatch of cattle. You can see how it works here. The pistol is manually operated; while it does have a magazine, the user needs to rotate a bolt at the back of the gun to load and unload it for every shot. That explains the shooter’s action after each shot and how it was so practiced. It wasn’t a jam but rather the bolt action way of operating the pistol. Perhaps it is an antique Welrod or a modern B&T veterinary pistol. But, there is another more alarming alternative. Worryingly, there are STL files of said pistol available. Some users have made working versions of the gun in question. Given the simple bolt action design, this could be a plausible way to obtain this gun. It could have also been made with CNC and a lathe, but quite horribly, 3D printing could be used to make this particular pistol.

Suppressors have emerged as one of the fastest-growing applications in 3D printing. AM Research Executive Vice President of Research Scott Dunham identified this trend in a 2017 report and, in a recent follow-up study, highlighted its continued rise, emphasizing the growing prevalence of suppressed weapons and the advantages of 3D-printed suppressors. Additive manufacturing (AM) outperforms conventional methods by reducing noise, minimizing thermal signature, and effectively managing the weapon’s pressure drop.

Legal changes have made suppressors more accessible to U.S. consumers, fueling increased demand. Simultaneously, special forces have adopted suppressors to enhance survivability on sensor-dense battlefields, while competitive shooters benefit from reduced hearing damage and minimized exposure to noxious fumes. This confluence of factors has driven the rapid adoption of additively manufactured silencers across both civilian and military markets.

At first glance, the weapon appears somewhat adapted or improvised, featuring what seems to be a home-brew suppressor. If the suppressor had been a professionally manufactured 3D-printed model, it might have cycled the weapon more reliably—though misfires can occur with any setup.

A renewed public debate on suppressors and silencers could potentially result in stricter regulations, making it harder for consumers to obtain them. This would likely lead to a sharp decline in demand from the tens of thousands of civilians currently purchasing or planning to purchase 3D-printed suppressors. Such regulatory changes could also precipitate an abrupt slowdown in machine sales to arms manufacturers and negatively affect the previously fast-growing service market for suppressors. This downturn would have a significant impact on the growth trajectory of metal additive manufacturing in the U.S.

A second scenario, equally detrimental to the 3D printing industry, might focus on the desktop segment. The assassin’s calm, practiced handling of the cycling issue—executed almost seamlessly—suggests extensive preparation and familiarity with this problem. Most individuals would hesitate or require more time to clear a jam, but this individual appeared prepared for the malfunction.

The most plausible explanation is that the suppressor was homemade and reduced the weapon’s pressure to such an extent that cycling the round became unreliable, necessitating extensive practice to ensure functionality. The use of subsonic ammunition, while reducing noise further, could exacerbate this issue by making the system even more prone to malfunctions. Anticipating such malfunctions and training to address them swiftly aligns with the methodical execution observed, underscoring the likelihood of an improvised suppressor created with desktop 3D printing (or another home brew method).

If we assume this scenario, several possibilities emerge:

1. Financial Constraint: The person may not have had the $1,800 required to purchase a professionally 3D-printed suppressor.
2. Store-Bought Malfunction: The suppressor could have been store-bought, but a malfunction occurred, and the individual’s proficiency with firearms allowed them to clear it immediately regardless.
3. Forensic Evidence Avoidance: They might have believed that purchasing a suppressor would result in additional forensic evidence being left on the shell casing or round.
4. Traceability Concerns: The individual may have thought that purchasing a suppressor would make it easier for authorities to trace them.
5. Legal Impediments: They could have been unable to legally purchase a suppressor due to a felony conviction or other restrictions.
6. Time Constraints: The person might not have had enough time to buy a suppressor before committing the act.
7. DIY Preference for Anonymity: They may have deliberately chosen to fabricate both the suppressor and the weapon themselves to ensure complete untraceability.

If we consider these possibilities, another potential issue arises for the 3D printing industry. Homebuilt suppressors can be constructed through various methods, and 3D printing is one of them. However, if the weapon itself was also manufactured at home, the likelihood of 3D printing playing a role increases, particularly for components such as the lower receiver or other parts of the firearm. In this case, the weapon could be a homemade, semi-automatic, or otherwise non-fully-automatic firearm.

Ghost guns have often captured media attention, with 3D-printed firearms frequently linked to criminal activity. If 3D printing becomes a significant aspect of this case, it could reignite concerns and lead to renewed legislative focus on 3D-printed weapons. Historically, laws have been enacted to ban the production of 3D-printed guns or the distribution of associated files. This case could add momentum to such efforts, potentially affecting printer manufacturers and file-sharing platforms alike. In either scenario, the industry risks being cast in a negative light.

Increased media attention around additively manufactured suppressors or 3D-printed guns could paradoxically drive their adoption. High-profile coverage often raises awareness, potentially sparking curiosity and demand, especially among niche user groups. This phenomenon has occurred before, where controversy inadvertently promoted the very products under scrutiny. This is more likely to happen in this case since professionally made 3D printed suppressors have flow through architectures that help weapons cycle properly while reducing abnormal wear and tear on the weapon.

If we manage to avoid the negative spotlight this time, we might be fortunate, but it would only delay the inevitable. With thousands of suppressors being sold to civilians, it’s not a question of if one will be involved in a crime, but when. Our industry is increasingly intertwined with weapons and military applications. We must decide what stance to take and how to respond as death and 3D printing converge.